EOF - Driving Markets from Our Own Kernels

At the Internet Identity Workshop (IIW) a couple months ago, I sat at a table
where a couple guys discussed whether certain code belonged in kernel
space or user space. I missed the details, but it seemed meaningful to me
that the IIW is a workshop for developers of user-centric identity management
systems. All the IDM (identity management) communities represented at
IIW—OpenID, Higgins, CardSpace, OSIS, Oauth, ClaimID, Bandit, Liberty
and so on—grew out of the need for users to be in control of their identity-based
relationships, rather than to be controlled within the walls of
“relationships” defined by the kind of “identity
providers” whose cards
fill our wallets.

Later it occurred to me that there's a similar distinction between our own
kernel and user spaces—that is, between the core capabilities we bring to
the world and the way those capabilities are put to use, especially in the
marketplace.

Think for a minute about how clothing works in a society. In a way, it
drives how we work in the world. Whether practical or merely symbolic, our
clothing qualifies us to fly a commercial airplane, argue a case before a
judge, rivet girders in a high-rise, look presentable in a business meeting
or geek-out amongst fellow engineers.

Now, think about how wallets work. They not only carry currency, but various
forms of identification as well. These, however, differ from clothing in
one important way: nearly all forms of identification are provided for us
by outside organizations. This goes for our driver's licenses, our credit and
debit cards, our membership cards and insurance cards. In terms of
clothing, these cards are little rectangular uniforms. So, even if they
have our names on them, they are not ours. They are issued, and belong to,
entities outside ourselves—entities that enable but also control and
restrict how we deal with a range of uses.

Except for sole-proprietor business cards, none of the rectangles in our
wallets are ours. Yet, they contain the means by which we perform in the
marketplace. Here's another way of looking at it: the cards in our wallets are
like proprietary drivers in our kernels.

What would happen if we had our own relationship drivers inside our own
kernels? These drivers would not be written and provided by outsiders as
ways of driving us as customers and citizens, but rather written for us
(and by us) as ways we can drive relationships with governments, retailers,
health-care providers, service organizations and other entities that could
actually benefit by not having to control everything.

For example, we could have “preference drivers” that express
market logic,
such as, “If I'm calling for tech support,
then you can't give me a
promotional message.” We might even add an incentive, such as,
“And I'll
pay you $.50 for getting me to a human being in less than a minute.”

We could have “request drivers” that support the expression of demand for
goods and services, such as, “We need a stroller for twins, sometime in the
next five hours, from any retailer within five miles of Highway 70 between
Salina and Kansas City.”

We could have “trust drivers” that support the expression of our own usage
and license agreements. These could say, “Here's all you need to know to
trust me, with automated links to one or more verifying trust-assurance
organizations, so we can both be spared any wasted effort.” These could
selectively disclose relevant memberships, credit worthiness, past dealings
and so on—all on a need-to-know basis, without requiring us to fill out
forms or even reveal our names.

These kinds of blue-sky scenarios are prevented only by business defaults
set to regard the customer as a dependent and subordinate entity rather
than an independent and equal one. Preserving this kind of caste system
traditionally has been seen as a business requirement, but it's not. Free
customers can be a lot more valuable than enslaved ones.

So, why aren't we free? Why are we dependent variables instead of
independent ones?
Because markets are programmed and driven by vendors and other large
organizations that treat us as devices to be driven, rather than the
drivers in our own right. Or, in tech terms, they pack us full of
proprietary drivers that enforce dependency and wear blinders to the
benefits of customer independence.

Customers need to drive and not just be driven. We don't yet know what
forms the driving code will take, but there's a hole where it should go,
and it's in ourselves—or in the layer of code and protocols by which we
address the connected world. This is a huge frontier, and so is the huge
new market that will open for commercial facilitators of customer
independence.

The need for a self-hack was highlighted nicely by Facebook when it
launched its “Beacon” advertising system last November. As I write this,
Facebook has attracted more than 55 million users (not customers, or the company
might be more accountable to them) into its walled garden. Everything went
fine until Facebook found ways to track, expose and monetize users'
relationships, by following and in some cases exposing the crumb trails
they leave on the Web. A great cry went up, much news was made, and
Facebook made adjustments that I'm sure it's still tweaking as you read
this.

But, nothing it does will change the basic problem, which is a lack of
native power on the users' side. So, in that absence, all the rules for
relating to, and within, Facebook are controlled by the company. This
is the way things have been for every B2C company, since the dawn of the
Required Agreement.

Does it have to be this way? No. We don't need Required Agreements any more
than we need proprietary operating systems and software. Relationships
should be mutually respectful and agreeable. Much more will get done that
way, more cheaply, with much better code and much less wasted effort.

So, to sum up, we won't have market relationships worthy of the label until
market space becomes user space. Until then, the markets we call
“free” will
still too often consist of “your choice of walled garden”.

We've broken out of that conceptual trap before. We can do it again.

Doc Searls is Senior Editor of Linux Journal. He is
also a Visiting
Scholar at the University of California at Santa Barbara and a Fellow
with the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.

Trending Topics

Upcoming Webinar

Getting Started with DevOps - Including New Data on IT Performance from Puppet Labs 2015 State of DevOps Report

August 27, 2015
12:00 PM CDT

DevOps represents a profound change from the way most IT departments have traditionally worked: from siloed teams and high-anxiety releases to everyone collaborating on uneventful and more frequent releases of higher-quality code. It doesn't matter how large or small an organization is, or even whether it's historically slow moving or risk averse — there are ways to adopt DevOps sanely, and get measurable results in just weeks.